SwiftQuill

I'm working on a compilation of fallacies, tactics, and phrases that leftists use to defend their ideology. Here are some patterns I have detected. *** #1 - The Iron Man Fallacy This isn't a formal fallacy. It's not a term used by academics. But it essentially means that one is distorting their own argument, or an ally's argument, to make it sound more reasonable than it actually is. Example #1: Brie Larson: "If you're a white male and you didn't like this movie, your opinion doesn't matter!" Critic: "That's both racist and sexist". Defender: "Brie Larson isn't being racist or sexist. She is expressing concern over the fact that in the movie industry, there is insufficient representation of females and ethnic minorities within movie critic communities. Not only that, she is explaining how white males aren't the target audience of this movie. Each movie has a specific target audience, that's how marketing works. It is perfectly expected that if you are a white male, you didn't enjoy that movie." Essentially, you can be an ass, as long as you're coming from a woke position, and someone will defend you and portray your argument as reasonable and fair. Example #2: Professor Flowers: "I literally want all whites to be deported from the places they invaded. The USA belongs to the natives, not to whites. Same with Africa." Critic: "That's very racist, toxic, and hateful". Defender: "Professor Flowers isn't racist. She's a black activist! She fights for equality of race. And she is criticising the issue of colonialism. To this very day, third world countries suffer from it. And ethnic minorities suffer in first world countries. A lot of the injustices are inherited, for instance descendents of slaves. To this day, there is a lot of racism and she is proposing a solution for the issue which involves separatism." Doesn't matter if you're white, poor, working at Mcdonald's. If you happen to have been born in USA, your entire family should be deported. You disgusting white! Example #3: Feminist scholar: "I literally hate men. I believe toxic masculinity is a trait universal to all men. I have studied Feminism for years and I know what I'm talking about. I literally believe that in order to be a true feminist, a woman should never have sex with men. And women should always look at society from the perspective that their are the oppressed and that all men are oppressors." Critic: "That's sexist, hateful, and very reductive. I don't think all men are toxic." Defender: "This person is an academic! What degrees do you have in Feminist studies? This person is highlighting the SYSTEMIC - not individual - oppression caused by men. She isn't saying that literally every individual man is evil. She's just pointing out the ways in which men benefit in society and women still have issues to be resolved. She isn't saying all men are toxic. She's saying that toxic masculinity is INHERENT to men. Only men have toxic masculinity, not women. You're misrepresenting that scholar's ideas." *** #2 - The Association Fallacy This is the notion that whatever some idea or argument is associated with is more important than the argument itself. Example #1: Critic: "I agree with Elon Musk that free speech is important and that anti hate speech laws are going too far." Leftist: "What? You agree with Elon Musk? The multi billionair egomaniac who is supporting Trump?" This one is obvious. Both the content and the structure of the argument are associated with the evil right. Example #2: Critic: "I went to a Jordan Peterson lecture in person last year. I enjoyed it. He gave some good life advice on how to gain self esteem and find meaning and satisfaction with the work you do." Leftist: "You like Jordan Peterson? The Alt Right guy? Don't tell me you're an incel or something". This one actually happened to me. And in case you're curious, Peterson spent 99% of the lecture talking about psychology and self help. He only spent like 2 or 3 minutes at the very end talking about the woke stuff. But of course, because Peterson is associated with Ben Shapiro, the right wing, and all that, it means he's Satan himself. And everything he does and says is evil and stupid and wrong. *** #3 - Applied Scientism™ Scientism is basically a misapplication and/or a reductive way to approach truth, as though only science and rigorous academic scientific methods are applicable to discover truth. Example #1: Critic: "I'm concerned about young men. I feel young men are feeling confused and frustrated nowadays. People in my social circle, my younger brother, young men online, I see a lot of young men experiencing depression and anger issues." Leftist: "What's your scientific peer reviewed literature on the topic? Your social circle? Pfft how unscientific of you. That's a very small sample. Do you want to look at these statistics I found from a Feminist book on why men in general have life a lot easier than women?" So it doesn't matter if there's evidence. It doesn't matter if you have lived experiences. Direct evidence. It doesn't matter if you have anecdotal evidence. It doesn't matter any kind of evidence. The only evidence that matters is peer reviewed, from Harvard, from the Sociology or Feminist department. If you give them evidence, but that comes from a psychology author who "isn't an expert in social psychology", then it's invalid. Because if you go against the narrative in any way, you need 100% quantifiable, peer reviewed, double blind experiments. Even if you give evidence (say, statistics on male suicide) it will always be nitpicked. "Oh you're applying a lot of interpretation from this data. You can't infer this from these statistics". So it doesn't matter, the excuses are endless. Meanwhile, if there's one single study that says trans women don't have advantage in women's sports, to them that's enough. One study on puberty blockers. One study on DEI. One study or one statistic for this thing they agree with, in that case it's not worth questioning it too much. *** This is going to be quite the long list. What about you? Do you have a favorite leftist fallacy or phrase?

I'm obsessed with AI, particularly large language models. Since about 1-2 years ago I started using ChatGPT on a daily basis. In the beginning it was mostly for fun, but then I actually bothered to test it in various ways, to see what are the limits of its capacity. Trust me when I say I've done probably hundreds of experiments in various ways. I'm going to highlight the best and worst usages of ChatGPT as of this version. ChatGPT's weaknesses Creative writing: Creating stories isn't just about creating characters and conflicts. It's much more than that. It's about establishing a narrator's tone, through the use of literary devices, creating personalities that convey their motivations through their dialogue, and many other ideas. It doesn't matter if you ask ChatGPT to write a story with many guidelines, even instructing it the "tone" and linguistic style to use. It's capable of writing stories, but they are 100 soulless. If you ask it "Write a story with a sinister tone", it will simply add various synonyms of the word "sinister" such as "somber" throughout the story. It's not good for creating stories even if you have an outline of characters and plots. It lacks a creative soul. Grade: F Academic research/rigorous science: People tend to agree that ChatGPT is useful for research. But there's a difference between research and academic, rigorous research. Academic research has very high standards of rigor. ChatGPT has a generic idea of what it means to establish research questions, research variables, research metodology. If you are a student in college and struggling with a Master's thesis for instance (as I am), don't even bother wasting time with ChatGPT. Its understanding of scientific methodology is very shallow. You need to put in the work of reading academic research methods books and lots of papers to understand how to write a thesis or academic paper. I've only tested this for social sciences. I've not tested ChatGPT for hard sciences but I assume it's equally weak. It's also terrible at obtaining citations and reputable sources. Grade: F Programming: As many softwares engineers know, ChatGPT is quite capable of reading and producing code in all popular languages. The issue is that its understanding of programming is equivalent to a junior developer straight out of college. Hell, I'm a junior Javascript developer and even I make better code than ChatGPT. So if you're an intermediate level programmer (over 2/3 years of experience in programming) I bother using ChatGPT for creating code. It is, however, good at creating easy code quickly when otherwise you don't feel like coding yourself (I use it for annoying SQL scritps for instance). It is somewhat OK at detecting errors in your code as well. Grade: D Maths: No point going into detail here. There are enough memes and videos out there demonstrating how awful ChatGPT is at anything that involves maths. It can't even do a basic Finance exercise. Grade: F Riddles and jokes: Sometimes I use ChatGPT for fun. It's good at some things, but it's definitely not good at jokes nor riddles. For some reason, ChatGPT gives you immediately the punch line of a joke or the solution of a riddle. It clearly doesn't understand how these concepts work. Also if you ask it "write a list of 10 jokes/riddles" for some reason it often repeats jokes. Even if you say explicitly "write a new riddle" it will reuse old ones. And they're not good riddles nor jokes. Grade: F Knowledge of fringe concepts/ideas/authors/events etc.: If you have a vague idea of a lesser popular song whose name you forgot about, or some rare book you read years ago from a specific non popular author, if you ask ChatGPT about things like these, it won't get it. Not only that, it seems stubborn into pretending it knows everything. Often times it will give you names of fake books, from fake authors, just things that never existed. It's only good for somewhat popular concepts in our society. Grade: F Spiral Dynamics: ChatGPT has a ok understanding of Spiral Dynamics. It gives you good summaries of what each stage represents. And it can give you good examples of individuals in each stage. The issue is that its focus if very "content" oriented. Its understanding of SD is shallow often. Let's say there's a celebrity who is a boxer. A big muscles guy who talks about power and success a lot. But let's say he's actually advanced, someone who reads a lot, someone with progressive ideals. ChatGPT will focus on the content of that person (someone who likes competition and power) and regard him stage Orange or Red. Grade: D ChatGPT's strengths Explaining difficult concepts: ChatGPT is an amazing tool to learn new concepts. I think it should even be used to improve the education system. It's really good at picking a complex word with a lot of historical and abstract baggage in it (like "postmodernism") and explain it in simple terms, without distorting the concept. If I had a kid I would advise him to use ChatGPT to learn difficult concepts. Grade: A Text editing: It's good at detecting spelling errors, bad grammar, it's good at improving the tone of your writing, it's good at reading a large chunk of text and removing redundant statements in it. Overall it's pretty good. But don't use it for creative writing. Only for practical, day to day use, like sending an email to someone. Grade: B Philosophy: I've had many, many, many long conversations with ChatGPT on philosophy. ChatGPT is shockingly unbiased. This is a huge advantage. It doesn't portray this or that philosopher or concept in a positive or negative light. You can have very long conversations, and it's very "open minded" (it listens to what you're saying) and it will always steelman your position. It will never straw man you. And it is good at detecting fallacies in your reasoning. It might not be good at "producing" philosophy, but it's really good if you want to sort of reflect on ideas. This applies to politics as well. If you're a conservative for instance, a healthy conservative, you can have a decent conversation with ChatGPT and it won't immediately assume you're a racist cis white male bigot. And also it's capable of nuanced discussions, without lumping all individuals who believe in an ideology or philosophy in the same group. It's also really good at explaining some complex problems and events in our society (like why people are becoming polarized, why people are addicted to the internet, why there is economic instability). Grade: A Venting/Therapy: It's good to vent to. You just need to clarify that you don't want "life advice" and just want to vent. It's good at listening, hearing what you are saying, paraphrasing it (a method psychologists use to demonstrate empathy) and even give words of encouragement. It will never get tired of listening to you. And it shifts from "practical robot" mode into "empathic being" whenever you vent. Hey, for a robot, it's pretty good. Grade: B This is a very summarized list. It's all I could remember on top of my head right now. I've also done experiments with other LLM's like Gemini/Bard, but ChatGPT tends to be the best all these areas overall. What are your thoughts on the matter? Do you disagree with any of the points I brought up? What are other useful applications for ChatGPT in your experience?

Some interesting progress was made today.

@Juns What evidence is there of dysgenics? And I thought the average IQ was rising over the years, not decreasing. My proposal is to invest in more and higher quality education. Education provides tools for the mind to develop cognitive skills. I think we should: 1 - Improve the education system in first world countries - our education system has changed very little over time. I think we can improve in terms of adjusting the amount and variety of content being taught to students. We can also implement better testing methods (I think exams and tests are they are performed today are very flawed). 2 - Help third world countries develop their education systems - many people in third world countries don't even have access to education. How are we supposed to measure their IQ if they weren't given a change to develop these skills? Both of these proposals are complex because they need financing and don't provide immediate survival benefit. I don't see businessmen or politicians caring too much about the education system. And also other reasons why education is important: it correlates with cognitive and moral development as well. I think this is a much better focus than to prevent low IQ people from procreating or whatever eugenics system you are pondering.

@Juns well for one eugenics is often associated with horrific racist ideas. And to segment people according to their IQ, that's probably even worse than racism. And the second major flaw in this reasoning is that IQ is not well defined. Yes many psychologists and scientists use IQ as a metric for intelligence, but it's very reductive. You can have a high IQ because fo your mathematics skills, but have a low score on linguistic skills. Whereas another individual might have a lower IQ than you, but overall have a better score in most metrics. Not to mention that IQ isn't an universal metric. If you take an IQ test in the US, in South Africa, and in China, you will very likely obtain different results. Because IQ tests aren't nowhere near as objective as scientists make them out to be. And why IQ? Why not focus on EQ instead? Why not focus on cognitive development instead? Why IQ specifically? There have been instances in history of individuals with high IQ who committed atrocities. I just don't see much merit in this topic, not even as a hypothetical.

I don't think it's possible to create a single ideology that accounts for differences in people's development levels, neurology, personality types, lifestyles, sexual identities, economic classes, religiosity, and various other variables. I think in order for such an ideology to work, it would need to be so flexible that it wouldn't have any limitations. Let's start with ethics. How could we dictate what's good or evil under such ideology? In most countries it's considered ok to eat animal. In some countries, it's considered ok to exploit child labor. In some countries it's considered ok to treat people differently based on their class. Not just on a cultural/societal level, but if we apply ethics to an individual level it becomes even more complex. You mention meritocracy and democracy, but many societies today are against those concepts. How would you force them to adopt these ideas? This seems analogous to the problem scientists faced in the 20th century when they tried to come up with a unified scientific model. It simply doesn't work. Science is so complex that you need different models for different fields and different methodologies. A single, unified scientific model can't work. And you propose we should have a unified concept for politics, religion, ethics, and self improvement? I would propose the opposite perhaps. That these things should be more individual. Each person should stop trying so hard to follow the herd, and should instead develop their own religiosity, infer their own system of ethics, and subscribe to the political concepts they personally believe make most sense.

@Juns You seriously don't see how it's pretty messed up to advocate for eugenics?

I absolutely loved the videos where Leo tackled scientific concepts and mixed them with structural-stage yellow ideas. Quantum Mechanics Debunks Materialism Relativism Leo has mentioned the idea of creating a video on Chaos Theory. Here are some questions that can be explored: What is Chaos? How do mathematicians/scientists/philosophers define it? What is Chaos Theory? Why is it that life feels so chaotic and unpredictable? Why is it that no matter how much we study something, it's never "enough"? E.g. how an economist can spend decades studying economics models, yet make bad predictions again and again on how the inflation/unemployment/GDP will be in the future. Why does the word "chaos" have a bad connotation? Why didn't "God" create a simple universe with few variables? How come no single philosophy or ideology can fully encapsulate the complexity of life? (not even Nonduality) Why is the universe so chaotic? Even outside this tiny planet, even far in the distance into space, there are quasars, black holes, all sorts of strange, complex objects What are the metaphysical implications of Chaos Theory? What epistemological errors do we make when we distinguish "chaos" from "non chaos"? What are useful perspectives we can adopt from it, to grow in life?

One example I just remembered. I asked ChatGPT where Robert Greene (the author) is on SD. It said "Stage Red" because he wrote a book on how to achieve power. Anyone who has read Robert Greene's books knows this is preposterous, laughable even. That man is a sophisticated thinker. Robert Greene... isn't even Green. He's yellow. He connects a lot of dots from various ideas and his books are very unique. My favorie book from him is "Mastery".

There was a youtube channel from a guy I forget the name. It's a guy who has big muscles, clearly exercises a lot, he owns a gym, and even other businesses, and he makes videos on life advice. Like how to lose weight, how to embrace your authentic self, how to make money. If I were to ask ChatGPT, it would put that individual at stage orange. But I dare anyone watch that channel, look at the way the guy talks. The depth he talks about topics (business, dating, success etc). I personally would put that guy at stage yellow. He has a nuanced view of things. And he isn't your average "pull yourself by the bootstraps" kind of capitalist. So I couldn't disagree more with you. I think you can have a visible layer of one particular stage but in reality your center of gravity be a different one. SD isn't an exact science either way. It's very much open to interpretation.

If Greta Thunberg is stage yellow then I'm fucking stage Coral

@RightHand If you truly think "Oh he's a boxer therefore stage red" or "Oh he's a businessman therefore stage orange" or "She's a feminist therefore stage green" that's a very reductive way to look at SD. You can be a boxer and competitive, but be educated, capable of understanding and adopting multiple perspectives, and a rich and multidimensional way of looking at the world, and value your community a lot. You can also identify as a feminist, but be violent, have self control issues (like drugs, gambling, or crime or whatever), have 0 consideration for the poor, and be obsessed with looks and material stuff. I didn't say I understand cognitive development better than ChatGPT. I'm sharing my perspective on the matter after some experiments. And after some exercises with ChatGPT, I disagreed on some of its assessments. In one experiment ChatGPT said Greta Thunberg is stage yellow. Oh, come on. Because she's a leftist who cares about issues in the world?

@SQAAD I'm a fan of Sapolsky. I think he's very intelligent. I watched a playlist of around 20 psych lectures by him. Leo has regarded Sapolsky stage yellow. In my opinion Sapolsky is very much a materialist. I don't think I would consider him stage yellow at least in terms of science. He has deep knowledge of the human mind but to me it feels very narrow to the common stage orange scientist. I've not seen much of him talking about other topics outside psychology, so I wouldn't know. He might indeed be stage yellow in other regards.

I became vegetarian in 2023. I lasted 9 months with that diet until I developed somewhat serious and worrying health issues (fainting sensation, weakness, less strength when lifting weights). What those morons don't understand is that resistance in changing our diet isn't just about "me likes eat meat". It affects your health, your lifestyle, your social life (can't eat in restaurants with friends and family), your time (preparing vegan food can longer). It is an admirable goal to reduce animal suffering. But don't get preachy about it.

To these people, an uneducated, racist, Young Earth Creationist, white male redneck, with a MAGA hat, who works say as a trucker, to them he is a perfect representation of problems on the right. Definitely not a caricature. But if you show them videos of liberal women saying they hate men, or black separatists saying they hate white people, or trans activists saying Joe Rogan promotes "trans ge**cide" by discussing trans bathrooms or something stupid like that in his podcast, to them that's "a caricature of wokeness". Or as Leo says, it's "criticism from below". "Fox News propaganda".

I find it deeply frustrating that opposition to wokeness is often automatically associated with right-wing politics. As someone who identifies as center-left and supports equality for all, including women, ethnic minorities, and marginalized groups, I reject the toxic aspects of wokeness because I have experienced injustices stemming from it. For instance, I’ve been denied education, internships, and jobs simply because I am male. These experiences make me question a system that claims to fight inequality yet perpetuates discrimination under the guise of equity. It angers me that expressing valid concerns about wokeness often leads to being labeled as against equality or afraid of losing privilege. This oversimplified narrative ignores the complexities of real-life situations. While privilege exists in many contexts, wokeness often exaggerates its scope and application, disregarding individual struggles and nuances. I’m also concerned that communities like Actualized.org, including Leo himself, are uncritical of wokeness and unwilling to address its flaws. In this community, criticism of wokeness or the left is often dismissed as right-wing rhetoric, incel ideology, bigotry, or being stuck in a "stage orange" mindset, ignoring valid concerns about its negative impact. Leo and many forum users claim, "If you criticize stage green, it’s because you’re too comfortable in stage orange or not evolved enough," while simultaneously demonizing stage orange. By their logic, this community’s inability to handle criticism fairly would place it below stage orange. It feels like a large part of society doesn’t fully embrace radical leftist ideas yet remains intolerant of dissent. This stifles dialogue and forces people like me, who value fairness and genuine equality, to remain silent or risk being misunderstood. Ultimately, my frustration lies in the inability to critique the excesses of wokeness without being unfairly categorized. I want a world where discussions about justice and fairness are balanced, inclusive, and open to diverse perspectives—not dominated by a single, intolerant ideology.

I mean I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. As someone who has 2 degrees and is currently about to complete the 3rd, I have to say academia has pretty good standards. Then again, I studied in 2 Portuguese universities, not in the USA so I wouldn't know. But I would guess as long as you study anything that isn't "Black Studies", Sociology, "Gender Studies" or "Feminist Studies", in most majors and most courses you will probably get access to decent, accurate education.

@zazen Thank you. I'm glad you understand my point. And if you want something more "productive" on my end, I will say it's difficult. I understand the purpose of DEI and Affirmative action. And I feel that we can't just throw these measures out the window and pretend the free market is fair. I just feel that battling racism with racism and sexism with sexism isn't the best way to go about it. I think under very narrow circumstances we can have DEI. Say in industry X (say Finance) there is a ratio of 50/50 blacks and whites who apply for jobs, with the same level of experience. Yet, whites dominate the market. Under very specific occasions like these, I think DEI is fair. But I think this is beyond policy. I think it's also more cultural. I feel that what we need the most is to remove bias. And bias is a very difficult variable to "detect" in the system. If a certain industry has more males than females, is it because patriarchy? It could be. Or is it partially because females in general aren't as interested in that field? People just need to account for more variables when thinking of these solutions.

By the way, when I refer to these points as "criticisms of wokeness," I’m not suggesting that they apply to everyone who is left-wing. Instead, I’m highlighting patterns that I find are often associated with wokeness as subsets of left-wing thought. I know wokeness doesn’t represent the entirety of progressive or leftist ideology, only a large portion of it. As beliefs like Young Earth Creationism aren’t representative of the majority of people on the right. Much like how Young Earth Creationism is more commonly associated with the right than the left, the issues I’m describing tend to be more prominent within woke circles and are more closely tied to left-wing spaces.

@Emerald 1 - You noticed I didn't tag you. But you didn't notice I hadn't tagged other people either. That's because I'm new to using this forum and I thought clicking only on the quote option was enough to ping the person. This is only the second time I'm using this forum so don't act so surprised I'm not familiar with the best practices. 2 - For the Nth time, I'm not interested in debating the niche topic of affirmative action. Leo and others have hammered on this topic again and again and ignored the main point I tried to make in the main thread. The main point I made is that wokeness has many problems and we should be able to discuss them without being dismissed as "right wing" or some other dismissive terms that you guys like to resort to. 3 - I don't deal with debunkers. If I tell you that I've been denied for certain internships and certain job opportunities because of affirmative action, as in, the ads for those opportunities explicitly said "FOR FEMALES ONLY" I don't see why you insist I must describe these in further detail. When people like yourself ignore someone's main point and decide to focus on this or that detail and start demanding evidence, that's a sign they just want to "debunk" the other person's position, as opposed to try understand the topic. 4 - No, I didn't use these instances as primary evidence that "woke bad". I gave examples. Try to understand that these are mere examples, not evidence. And I tried to get into a little bit of detail on these examples, like why do people reject the notion that maybe women don't like tech as much as men, and maybe that's why there's a gap. Why do we insist there must be a perfect 50/50 male to female ratio in every industry (except conveniently the industries dominated by women)? And as I keep saying, I'm not interested in debating the topic of affirmative action. I acknowledge that sexism exists, and racism exists, and there are studies out there that prove it. But I find that reductive still. Since you guys insist on reopening this thread, I appreciate you either respond to the things I'm saying as opposed to demanding evidence. But if you demand want scientific, peer reviewed, double blind experiments saying that I've been rejected for this or that opportunity, or that there are harmful aspects in wokeness worthy of being discussed, then I'm out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning For those 1 or 2 who posted in this thread with the least amount of interest in my main point, here are more: Wokeness rejects criticism of woke art - Isn't it interesting how shows like Hazbin Hotel, which have a LOT of LGBTQ+ characters, aren't hated? No one complains Hazbin Hotel is "woke" in a bad way. That's because the show is good. It has interesting characters and interesting writing. But if some guy on IMDB criticizes the bad acting and bad writing in a new star wars movies or series, that's because he's racist. Postmodernism deconstructs grand narratives... and writes new ones - Males control banks and corporations and governments and deliberately want to oppress women and minorities and their privilege extends to "men" because let's generalize. Wokeness demonises white people, men, western society, rich people - Have western countries done some pretty bad stuff in the past, and even continue doing so today? Yes. Does that mean all non western countries have a perfect history, without slavery and oppression? NO. Are there bad men out there? Yes. Are all men like that, are even "most men" like that? NO. Do you need me to pull 1000's of examples of people who have posted videos on youtube, or written articles, or written books, that say "white people bad"? Wokeness pretends progress doesn't exist - I've spoken to my parents. I know how women and minorities were treated a mere generation ago. And I've spoken to my grandparents. Women were second class citizens when my grandma was a teen. Are there still problems in society? Yes, there are still systemic injustices. But let's stop acting as though no progress has ever been made. Would someone like me to provide peer reviewed double blind studies on these points as well?

I'm happy you think that those wokies mostly exist on Twitter. Personally I know many people like that irl, which is why I'm particularly pissed off at the ideology. As for green policies, those I find sad. I owned an electric vehicle for 2 years and unfortunately I think it's not the solution. Electric vehicles are pretty much a scam. Climate change and environment is a topic I fully care about and I often wonder what we can do as a collective to improve there. Meanwhile woke Hollywood celebrities who own jets like to say men are the privileged class and selfish for not taking in the wokeness ideology. It's a pet peeve of mine to see that hypocrisy.

Maybe, if instead of male I were female, I would have an easier time dating. Maybe, if I were homosexual instead of straight, I'd also have an easier time dating. Or in making friends. Maybe there are pros and cons. And being white male isn't all pros. And being female/whatever isn't all cons. Maybe if I were black, and rich, my life would be easier overall. Maybe if I were a lesbian black woman... who is a multi millionaire Hollywood celebrity, my life wouldn't be that horrible. This is the kind of relativism that stage Green rejects. (And no, I'm not saying that all "demographics" have the same number of pros and cons, I'm not saying they're equal in that way)

I explicitly said I don't know what it's like to be a woman and I have no clue how many problems they face in life. Not once did I say "Oh women don't have it that bad" or that about any other opressed class. All I did say is that the oppressed vs privileged dichotomy is too simplistic in the stage green worldview. I never dismiss personal experiences from: Women The disabled Ethnic minorities Immigrants LGBTQ And yet, because I'm male and white leftists feel very comfortable commenting on my life and how easy I have it. If people on this forum find what I'm saying that outrageous it shows they're just being biased. My lived experiences, conveniently, because of this ideology, are irrelevant, or "statistically rare", or "not as bad as this other group". Do you see my issue?

I only now noticed this was a sarcastic remark and not a legitimate attempt to engage in the topic. I think that's enough. One of the mods can close this thread or something. I'm done debating here. Happy new year, folks. Do make sure to protect your ideology with tooth and nail.

@Hardkill I'm not an american nor into US politics. What or who is AOC?